That’s not what I said and you know it.  I did say that if Mach E can’t make 300 miles now at the price point with its given battery capacity, and that making it even less aerodynamic will make range even less, and further from 300 miles.   I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with me, but having my words twisted around and intentionally misrepresented is a different matter.   Contrary to your viewpoint, I am not obsessed with aerodynamics per se; I just happen to understand the effects better than most.  I’m suppose to given my education so it’s not surprising I often have a much different view on that subject.

This is your quote.....   Mach E is not the best in aerodynamics already, but if made into more of a traditional SUV its added drag would reduce highway driving range even more.  The standard Mach E already falls well below the requested 300-mile wishlist, and we want to make it even worse?     He's stated the form factor he wants, and your response effectively says "forget what you want, that can't be done without this silhouette".     Kia EV9 already matches Mach E's drag coefficient in a more traditional SUV profile that he's looking for.  Yes, that's a more expensive vehicle, but the aerodynamics can be overcome in a more traditional silhouette.  I'd have to imagine that Ford will be looking at something more similar in profile to the EV9 for the CE1 SUV version after going way too far the other way with the ultra sleek/weird looking 3-rows that were canned.  

You can keep throwing parts at it, but it sounds like you really need to hook it up to diagnostics that you can monitor a bunch of stuff.  I could think of several things like a partial sensor failure or fuel pump relay.  It could also be a low voltage problem. 

You can not possibly be that goddamn clueless, which makes your response even worse.  I wrote my post in simple English and you know that’s not what I said or implied regarding aerodynamics.  If you can’t understand simple physics that affects what can and can not be done or accomplished then I suggest you ask for help instead of becoming aggressive.  I’m done with your fucking rudeness and bullshit.  Enough.

Model E results are skewed because of factory costs.  To directly saddle Mach E and/or Lightning with all Model E costs isn't entirely fair, IMO.  It's possible those models could be profitable looking at them individually/in a vacuum (unknown, I'm just saying it's theoretically possible), but Model E as a whole has to account for building BOC and whatnot, which won't recoup investments until it actually comes online (which has been pushed back).   Here's the overall BEV truck market as of Q3, which Ford is still leading even with small sales.  To be fair, the Chevy/GMC are still relatively new and have been growing, but still obviously fall short of Lightning at this point in time, and they had a far greater investment than Ford did with Lightning.  

He stated he won't be in the market for at least a few years.  Something meeting his criteria may come out by then.   Not everyone is dead set on your aerodynamics thing.

There are some things I like about it, and some that I don't.

2027 Kia Telluride Revealed: A Range Rover By Any Other Name  

Another big tell is the low number of Lightning sales. Very difficult to recoup the Lightning development costs with a small sales volume like that. Ford Model E is bleeding billions.   If you are referring to large BEV pickups,  then the competition is doing no better than Ford. GMs large BEV pickups are selling in low numbers. Cybertruck is selling poorly with a huge inventory. Stellantis has cancelled their BEV Ram. 

Hi all, 2007 Lincoln Navigator with the 5.4L V8. For several months now, the Navigator has had to crank a while before it would finally fire. Within the last week or so (after sitting for a few weeks) it would crank just fine, but wouldn't start. I shot some starter fluid into the throttle body and it fired right up and ran smoothly. Took it out and it ran fine. Stopped and restarted it several times with no issues. Thought maybe it was a fluke. Today, after changing the MAF (chasing a P0174 code) I went to start it and encountered the same problem. With starter fluid, it did fire up and ran fine. Any thoughts about where I should look next to try to troubleshoot? I have fuel, spark and air since it does run once started. Anyone run across this scenario with your Navigator and determined a solution? Thanks!! Bob